Quote:
|
Its not slippery,its simple.
|
We are in disagreement. The concept is silppery because our weighting of various factors may not be similar.
If I place resale above original purchase cost, the S&W is typically better.
If I prioritize original purchase cost above anything else, the Taurus is generally better.
Some of these same things enter a decision made between, to pick a couple products at random, a Cadillac CTS and a Chevy Malibu.
But I'm curious: what would be your speculation to explain the difference in pricing between a roughly equivelant Taurus vs. S&W?
And, FWIW, when I checked on an online discounter recently a 629-4" .44 was priced at 707.00 while a Taurus 44SS4 .44 was 499.00. A difference of 40% rather than 100%. I'm not questioning your claim of "double" but it's probably based on an equivelant I wasn't checking.
Yet another tangential note: the same site showed the Ruger KRH-445 at 633.00 - now we're talking under 12% from the Ruger to the S&W while the Ruger is a 27% bump from the Taurus.
Would you more readily accept a 27% bump for a Ruger than a 40% bump for a S&W?
I did notice both the Taurus and Ruger were sold out while the S&W was available. Reminds me of old Uncle Ned when he was running a hobby shop: a woman came in and, noting that the bottles of Tester's were marked at 35 cents, remarked: "Clyde's down the street sells Tester's for 29 cents."
Uncle Ned counseled her to buy the paint from Clyde whereupon she said Clyde had none in stock.
The reply was: "If I didn't have any I could sell it for 29 cents too."
The moral is: availability counts for something - even if it's only available due to being overpriced. Right now, at that specific retailer, in that specific configuration, it's the only game in town.
/channeling Adam Smith
